Subject for the Second film? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem

12-22-2007, 11:04 AM

Since they have the rights to the Appendicies, this is the film I want to see

As GK Chesterton said: "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

Or to put it another way Zaentz/Jackson may have the legal right to use such material, but they'd be pushing it - & they might just find that if someone was to follow CT who was a bit more open to selling the movie rights to The Sil writings he or she might decide they'd blotted their copybook by making such a pseudo-Sil movie (in short, I don't know whether Adam Tolkien is as opposed to more movies as his father is....)

No-one can say that 5 or 10 years (or less) from now the rights to the Sil won't be up for grabs - do you really think approaches haven't been made? The 'official' version was that legal disputes would mean The Hobbit would never reach the screen. Then it was Jackson would never be involved. Now its The Sil rights will NEVER be sold. JRRT was willing to sell the movie rights to his work CT is not. Those who inherit the rights may be - its impossible to tell. So, that being the case, do you really think Zaentz or Jackson is going to risk annoying the rights holders by knocking up a script based on a few scraps in Appendix A if they thereby find themselves excluded from being able to buy movie rights to all Tolkien's other stuff?

Sauron the White

12-22-2007, 11:49 AM

davem --- you make an excellent case for waiting the situation out. I would guess the cycle of the next two films would take up the five years or so that you mentioned in your post. It would also give the filmmakers and rights holders (since those rights should revert to Zaentz before that unless he works out an extension) time to gauge the success of both the HOBBIT film and the bridge film. If they take in the hoped for lotery prize of $2 billion US then serious consideration could commence about another return to Middle-earth.

I certainly cannot argue with your logic.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-22-2007, 12:01 PM

davem

12-22-2007, 12:09 PM

Adam Tolkien is not opposed to movies of his grandfather's works:

Alejandro Serrano: They say many things about a film (or two) based on The Hobbit. ¿this things are good for the books (many people could read them for the first time if they do a film, as happened with The Lord of the Rings) or they are damaging them?

Adam Tolkien: I would have to say that it will depend on the film! http://www.fantasymundo.com/articulo.php?articulo=439

And he can even joke about his father's opposition:

(It [CoH]might be compared to a sort of literary Director's Cut, the long version of the story assembled from all the best footage available, though my father probably wouldn't welcome the filmmaking comparison!) http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000074611

And the publisher hasn't ruled out the possibility of selling the CoH rights.

"We all want this first and foremost to enjoy life as a book," said Brawn. "No one's saying never to a film (but) the film rights are reserved by the estate. We want to see what reaction it gets and then let it run its course." David Brawn, Director at Harper Collins

All of which proves precisely nothing. What we do know is that CT was annoyed by the Jackson movies & is unlikely to sell any further rights, but that Adam seems less antagonistic - he is perfectly prepared to wait & see how the Hobbit movies turn out.

My own feeling is that a decision on what happens to the movie rights may depend far more on what we see in 2010/11 than many think. If the movies are respectful & Jackson can avoid his worst excesses then maybe movie makers may have access to more than the synopsis in Appendix A.

Galendor

12-22-2007, 12:09 PM

I think in naming both of the upcoming 2 movies the filmakers will want to "cash in" on the brand name recognition of "The Hobbit" - so I wonder what the name of the second proposed film will be (if the first is called The Hobbit)?

For The Lord of the Rings movies, name recognition no doubt played a huge role in getting people to buy tickets. For example, my wife has never read LOTR, but still recognized the name. Such name recognition in a way made the Lord of the Rings movies famous before they ever came out. The same would be true for a movie named "The Hobbit".

If movies were ever made based on the Silmarillion, I don't think using that name would have the same level of name recognition among the masses. New Line-Jackson probably would realize this, and if so wouldn't use that name for a movie.

Maybe they will just call all of their movies "The Lord of the Rings" as the primary title, with a smaller subtitle as they have done so far.

Sauron the White

12-22-2007, 12:14 PM

from Galendor

Maybe they will just call all of their movies "The Lord of the Rings" as the primary title, with a smaller subtitle as they have done so far.

Are you saying that LOTR would be an overaching title like STAR WARS? If that is what you are suggesting it makes very good marketting sense but I imagine might be ripped by some since HOBBIT and the bridge film are not part of the storyline of LOTR. But I do like the idea and think it makes great sense as a way of unifying the Middle-earth pictures under one franchise name.

Is the name MIDDLE-EARTH somehow a possible franchise name with recognition and appeal?

William Cloud Hicklin

12-22-2007, 12:29 PM

Is the name MIDDLE-EARTH somehow a possible franchise name with recognition and appeal?

Oh, yeah. Iron Crown Enterprises sold a lot of titles under the name Middle-earth Roleplaying System (MERPS) before Zaentz yanked their license. Even in movie tie-in games, we get titles like "Battle for Middle-earth."

William Cloud Hicklin

12-22-2007, 12:42 PM

What we do know is that CT was annoyed by the Jackson movies & is unlikely to sell any further rights,

CT's no-sale position long, long predated Peter Jackson. If it wasn't lifelong, then the Rankin-Bass Hobbit was surely enough to cause it!

Remember also that even assuming Adam replaces his father on the board, he's only one director out of three; and Baillie and Michael George are two decades younger than Christopher and so likely to be around for a while yet.

One might also want to parse some othe Adam T statements. Interviewed at the CoH launch:Asked how he feels about the publicity his grandfather's work had generated over the years, he says it makes him "sad".

"Everyone talks about the brand, the franchise and the films," he says. "People obviously forget there's a man behind it, that he wrote it for his reasons and the books are wonderful.

"I'm certainly not unhappy about the success they've had, but it's a shame that it should become a brand. It's a work of art."

And from the Estae website (which is in fact Adam):
The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

Are there any plans to produce a feature film from The Children of Húrin ?
There are no plans of this nature in the foreseeable future.

Galendor

12-22-2007, 12:48 PM

from Galendor
Are you saying that LOTR would be an overaching title like STAR WARS?

Yes, that is what I was suggesting. But you are right, it might not be possible to do so for the reasons you gave.

Sauron the White

12-22-2007, 01:24 PM

Galendor - keep in mind I am agreeing in principle with your idea. I think it has real possibilities if they only need to work the Lord of the Rings idea (Sauron and the Ring) into all the other films. With HOBBIT its easy since that central anyways - well not Sauron so much but the Ring sure is. Clever writers will find a way if that is what they want to do.

davem

12-22-2007, 01:29 PM

As I said, those statements from Adam that I gave prove nothing at all - except that Adam is not completely opposed to the existence of movies. Personally speaking I have no desire to see any more Tolkien movies like the LotR farrago (yes, StW, that's my opinion).

Even assuming that Bailie & Michael George follow CT's wishes that doesn't translate to never - in fact, while my life will remain perfectly complete & fulfilled without ever seeing another Tolkien movie, I can't see that objecting to any movie adaptation on principle is admirable - anymore than the medieval Church's objection to the printing of Bibles. Yes, the books are great art, but cinema may produce great art too. That's why I say that a lot will depend on what we see on screen in 2010. Its not impossible that CT could have liked a movie adaptation of LotR - unfortunately the one he saw was Jacksons. What if he'd actually liked it (ie if it had been of sufficient quality)? I'm assuming that he went with an open mind. Also he was quite happy to contribute to the BBC radio adaptation of LotR, to the extent of being sent the script for approval & recording a cassette of pronunciations. This alone says to me that he is not totally opposed to dramatisation of his father's works.

All I'm arguing is 'never say never' - given the right circumstances, & I wouldn't be shocked if the film rights to Tolkien's other writings were sold in the not too distant future - though at the same time I'm not expecting an announcement next week...

William Cloud Hicklin

12-22-2007, 01:45 PM

Also he was quite happy to contribute to the BBC radio adaptation of LotR, to the extent of being sent the script for approval & recording a cassette of pronunciations. This alone says to me that he is not totally opposed to dramatisation of his father's works.

Interesting you should bring that up: remember, CT's press release said he thought his father's writing unsuitable for visual dramatic adaptation. Why this should be an important distinction I haven't been told: it may relate to the strictures JRRT gives in On Fairy-Stories; but it might well relate to the fact that a radio-play is still a medium based on words.

Sauron the White

12-22-2007, 03:05 PM

Somebody here - perhaps davem or WCH - told a story a while back about JRRT himself attending a school play of THE HOBBIT. If I remember right, Tolkien beamed broad smiles when they they kept exactly to a scene or some bit of dialogue but became displeased and agitated whenever they deviated in any way. I guess that speaks volumes as why Hollywood is loathe to give authors anything approaching control when their work is translated from print to film.

Maybe that is why he enjoyed the radio production so much. Things do not have to be so heavily cut given that you have much more time and can serialize things over weeks or months. On the radio you can have a narrator which is much closer to a book. And this is just a guess on my part - but I bet its much cheaper to use the book as a script where possible given that you save money from writers having to rewrite anything.

I have a feeling that given this choice

Film A - very loyal in both script and spirit to Tolkien almost to the point of slavishness. At the box office it barely makes it money back and people find it too long with too many talking heads and dull parts.

Film B - Jackson action treatment with Jackson big box office results.

I tend to think that both JRRT and CT would vote loudly and often for the A choice.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-22-2007, 04:06 PM

Film A - very loyal in both script and spirit to Tolkien almost to the point of slavishness. At the box office it barely makes it money back and people find it too long with too many talking heads and dull parts.

Still the same old strawman.....

It is entirely possible to make a successful, dramatic, exciting adaptation of the LR (w/o 'too many talking heads and dull parts') without resorting to PJ's distortions and crudities- and above all, PJ's total cluelessness. Personally I would love to see such a film. It's the film I was waiting to see back in 2000-01. Boy, was I disappointed.

I guess that speaks volumes as why Hollywood is loathe to give authors anything approaching control when their work is translated from print to film.

And also speaks volumes about the lack of interest the Estate would have in your 'collaboration' proposal- technically they might have some representative on set, but his presence would be meaningless since the director can ignore him at will. So under the deal you are proposing, the Estate would give up rights they own without getting anything in return.

Incidentally, Jo Rowling's creative control doesn't seem to have hurt the HP films' boxoffice.

davem

12-22-2007, 04:10 PM

Maybe that is why he enjoyed the radio production so much. Things do not have to be so heavily cut given that you have much more time and can serialize things over weeks or months. .

The radio series took 13 hours - about the same time as the SEE of LotR, so they had the same time. The real problem with the movies was that the writers were convinced they could improve on Tolkien's work.

Sauron the White

12-22-2007, 04:32 PM

And also speaks volumes about the lack of interest the Estate would have in your 'collaboration' proposal- technically they might have some representative on set, but his presence would be meaningless since the director can ignore him at will. So under the deal you are proposing, the Estate would give up rights they own without getting anything in return.

I have always been taught that if something is being decided that is going to have some impact on you that it is always a good thing to have a seat at that table and have some input, to be able to make your case. That is much better than hearing about it afterwards from people who did not even bother to hear you out.

My idea - of both parties sitting down- with the Estate getting an adviser on set and the rights holders getting the right to take what is in the Appendicies and expand it in line with what is in other JRRT sources for accuracy - is not perfect. But what is?

Rowling is a living author who was red hot and at the top of her game when she sold those rights. You can hardly compare her position with that of JRRT in the late 1960's. Yes, his books had something of a following - but he was hardly in the position of Rowling. ANd besides, JRRT himself decided in favor of money over Art. That was his choice free and clear.

My idea would give the Estate a seat at the table, a voice when the writing and filming was done. It would not give them control but it would allow them to give advice, make a case, work with the writers and others to come up with alternatives to things like Osgiliath, beating of Gollum, and other things that drive purists crazy.

Perhaps I believe too much in people. I tend to believe that when peope of fair mind and good intention work together, better things happen than when they do not.

In this world very few people end up like Rowling with the ability to dictate the menu, help cook the food, dictate how it is served, and then get the head seat at the banquet table. That is rare and does not come along too often even for the best of us.

In the LOTR films the Estate had exactly zero input. Their thought, feelings, suggestions, objections, were never known or made known because all the movies were made without them being there in any way shape or form.

Again, I do think it comes back to that skit on Da Ali G Show where Sasha Baron Cohen as Ali G proposes a deal to a prospective book publisher "Hey, you know about those LOTR movies? Get this..... LOTR... the books!!! The movies made lots of money, the books can too". Or something like that.

In the minds of the worldwide public, the LOTR is both the books and the movies, or even just the movies since more people bought tickets to those than have bought the books over the last fifty years. For better or worse, they are linked together in a symbiotic relationship. They may not be one, but they sure are twisted together in many people minds.

This situation is going to go on for at least five more years with the next two films and perhaps longer. In fact, that intermeshing is only going to get stronger because now you will have five films over ten years instead of three over five years.

Giving an expert selected by the Estate a seat at the production meetings in all phases of production would be a very good thing in taking a step towards a more authentic Middle-earth.

davem

12-22-2007, 05:17 PM

The only interest studios have is in The Sil & CoH. That would allow them to knock out a trilogy based around the Three Great Tales, with background material from the history (ie a Beren & Luthien movie would bring in Valinor & the creation & theft of the Silmarils, CoH would bring in the Noldorin rebellion & the death of the Trees & a Gondolin story would complete the trilogy with the war of wrath & the fall of Melkor.

I think the real incentive for the Estate to sell the rights is that it will liberate them from constant hassle, & accusations of mean spiritedness from movie 'fans'. They should offer up the film rights including a veto for anything that they find grossly unacceptable, let the movies be made & then, hopefully, we can forget all this nonsense & get back to Tolkien the writer.

Sauron the White

12-22-2007, 06:03 PM

That has my vote. Let me rush out and pour a nice tall cool glass of milk so I can drink to that. Its amazing what rational minds can do when everyone is in a win win position. :)

Galendor

12-22-2007, 08:02 PM

My idea would give the Estate a seat at the table, a voice when the writing and filming was done. It would not give them control but it would allow them to give advice, make a case, work with the writers and others to come up with alternatives to things like Osgiliath, beating of Gollum, and other things that drive purists crazy.

Perhaps I believe too much in people. I tend to believe that when peope of fair mind and good intention work together, better things happen than when they do not.

I agree in principle, but the Tolkien Estate probably realized "in for a penny, in for a pound" and kept their distance from Jackson's movies for such a reason. Imagine what could/would happen if they agreed to be impotent "advisors" on the future The Hobbit movies. Jackson apparently wants these movies to directly tie in to his LOTR movies - I believe he will be motivated to include characters such as his Legolas, Arwen, Elrond, and Aragorn.

So imagine a worse-case scenario where Jackson is planning the death of Smaug. Who is this "Bard" character he asks - he has little use in MY movies! My audience wants to see Orlando Bloom as Legolas! He has "star power". It would be better if he killed Smaug - Legolas can ride in standing on the back of an eagle, do a death defying aerial leap onto Smaug's head, and deliver his signature triple-point-blank arrows into the head kill-shot! The Tolkien Estate "advisors" might cry no, you cannot do this. But Jackson could counter by saying this is best for my movies and my main audience, since they love movie Legolas. And there would be nothing the Tolkien Estate could do to stop it.

Then, no doubt, New Line and Jackson would still tout the fact that the movies were made with direct consultation from the Tolkien Estate, who would be ashamed of their pointless involvement.

STW, do you think Jackson is "of fair mind and good intention" in regards to these movies? He may have good intentions, I do not doubt it, but surely his primary intention is to make money, and have these future films serve as prequel vehicles to his LOTR movies. These intentions may cause him to take liberties with The Hobbit and LOTR book appendices that the Tolkien Estate would not approve of. So I can understand why they would simply not want any part in the creation of the movies.

Sauron the White

12-22-2007, 08:43 PM

Galendor ... I cannot argue with the scenario you present and I guess anything is possible when money is involved. Perhaps I am trusting far too much in the fact that everyone - in the end- wants what will be best for the public. And I guess that both sides could see than very differently.

I am not a genius and my ideas are not perfect (as others keep pointing out) but I would hope something can be done that would be a win win situation for both the Tolkien Estate concerns and film rights holders.

Having an Tolkien expert in on the film process cannot be a bad thing.... can it?
Having accuracy and more complete detail of those bridge events hinted at in the Appendicies but dealt more fully elsewhere cannot be a bad thing ... can it?

I am feeling like Rodney King asking "why can't we all just get along". Well, peace on Middle-earth and good will to Men...
and Elves ....
and Dwarves ....
okay... Orcs too.

Galendor

12-22-2007, 09:38 PM

[QUOTE]Having an Tolkien expert in on the film process cannot be a bad thing.... can it?
Having accuracy and more complete detail of those bridge events hinted at in the Appendicies but dealt more fully elsewhere cannot be a bad thing ... can it?[

STW, I agree of course, having a Tolkien expert in the film process cannot be a bad thing! But since it is understandable that the Tolkien Estate would not want that position, I nominate you, William Cloud Hickli, davem, and alatar. Just think of the arguments (and jokes from alatar) that would occur on the set. Jackson would have to hold his head in his hands or just run and hide.

I'm no genius either, but I have a suspicion that Jackson started out with great intentions of faithfulness to Tolkien, and that may be why many of us have fewer problems with the FOTR movie. But as the years passed, his own vision of the tone and substance of the movies became stronger - and understandably so. After all, he was immersed in it for years. And each time his 'version' of LOTR was presented to the public, he was strongly rewarded at the box office and with film awards. Now I suspect he feels more or less fully affirmed in his right to make alterations to the tone and substance of Tolkien's stories. And the vast majority of movie-goers having no interest in the books might agree. Action movies with moments of seriousness punctuated with base humor and a soundtrack designed to tell the audience how it should feel at any given moment seem to be quite popular. Being more of a pessimist, I fear we "purists" may be in for some disappointments in the future Hobbit movies due to Jackson's affirmation as a visionary of Middle Earth. But most moviegoers won't be disappointed.

davem

12-23-2007, 02:50 AM

All I'm looking for is movies that aren't aimed at the American Pie audience & manage to display some respect for the material. And the reason I want this is that I want the whole movie nonsense consigned to history. I think, if the two forthcoming movies are both successful & respectful of Tolkien's work the Estate may decide to unload the movie rights & move on - & that's more of a probably than a possibly once CT has passed on.

Personally, I have no problem with movies of Tolkien's works - though they won't ever equal the books - I just have a problem with silly or offensive adaptations. I think CoH could make a great movie, but I'm not sure the dark, ultimately bleak nature of the story would appeal to an audience without a tacked-on happy ending of some kind.

Anyway, the adaptation I want to see is an animated Smith of Wooton Major in the style of the Pauline Baynes illustrations.

Lalwendë

12-23-2007, 06:45 AM

However one can't exclude the possibility of the 'Bridge' film tanking. Part audience fatigue, but largely because I've seen no evidence at all that Jackson is capable of inventing remotely acceptable fan-fic: those portions of the LR trilogy which were any good were good as a direct function of the proportion of actual Tolkien therein. Conversely, those elements created out of whole cloth pretty uniformly sucked. I suspect that this 'bridge' movie will be as lame as Eragon.

PJ's name is not automatic boxoffice magic: vide King Kong.

You're right, this 'bridge' film is very risky indeed. Much of the audience of LotR will have been made up with people who couldn't/wouldn't read the books ("Long buks iz 2 ard 4 uz 2day" or "I haven't got time to read Tolkien. Reading long books cuts into my time watching four hours of soaps a day" and all that). That may hold up a little for The Hobbit but a lot of people won't be bothered by a bridging film if they know it's "all made up". And if Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson are involved with the script then I really don't hold out much hope as they are not good at creating narrative, and that's what holds any story, whether written or visual, together.

Of course they could just go for something which was just an "Art" film, which would negate the need for a narrative structure ;)

William Cloud Hicklin

12-23-2007, 07:53 AM

PJ *did* have a 'Tolkien expert' on set. Many of them, starting with Philippa Boyens and going on through many or most of the nerds at Weta, and eventually including McKellen, who came late to the books but became a total convert.

That didn't matter. If PJ isn't interested in 'accuracy' the availability of expertise is irrelevant.

StW has pointed out that more people have seen the movies in five years than read the books in fifty. Sad, but true. I'm afraid that as a result Jackson's ego has grown in proportion. "Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better." Although he's a savvy enough businessman to appeal to/ appease the 'fans', at this point it's Peter Jackson fans rather than Tolkien fans: the monstrous success of the trilogy simply ratifies, in his mind, his self-indulgences. I expect were any 'expert' to be provided, PJ's attitude would be much the same as StW and others: "What the hell do you know about making movies?"

zxcvbn

12-23-2007, 08:35 AM

i would like to point out that many of the radical changes in the plot can be credited to Fran Walsh and the 'Tolkien expert' Phillipa Boyens, who handled most of the script writing. And as much as I like the LOTR films, I hope Boyens is unable to collaborate on the Hobbit script and PJ gets his friend Steven Sinclair instead.

Sauron the White

12-23-2007, 10:02 AM

I expect were any 'expert' to be provided, PJ's attitude would be much the same as StW and others: "What the hell do you know about making movies?"

That is certainly a very blunt way of putting it. And it could turn out that way. My take on this is yes, you can be a Tolkien expert and not know beans about the process of film and how they make them and what the demands are. That is undeniable. During the first trilogy of films, Jackson and company learned something about Middle-earth. They probably did not learn enough to make it perfect. But it looks like they learned enough to earn enough and please the public.

I would hope the second time around they could improve on that record and go a little further in making the films more authentic. People here seem to think that I apologize for everything Jackson did in the films and am ignorant of the books.
Not so. I have read them many many times since my first effort way back in 1971. I love those books. And I can watch the films and cringe at things like the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead and kicking the pathetic behind of Gollum or making jokes about bodily gasses. Believe me folks, I sure wish none of that were in there.

I do get tired of rehashing all the same tired disputes year after year. But I still engage in them. Just canot resist the lure of the ring I guess. It would be nice if this next batch of films did not repeat that pattern. Do any of us want to be doing this over and over again five and ten years from now? One way to prevent that and have something we all can be proud of would be to have an expert from the Estate in on the entire process to advise. It would help if that person had some experience in film and understood that its a lot more than just pointing out that "it did not happen that way in the books".

Right now the slate is clean and fresh and there is opportunity. Lets all hope that steps can be taken in the right direction.

Lalwendë

12-23-2007, 10:28 AM

Sadly, being an uber-fan does not guarantee that you are the best person to add to or remove from Tolkien's text and create something new. Efforts by members of the Tolkien Society in re-writing are sometimes proof of that ;)

I just hope for someone who understands narrative and plot.

zxcvbn

12-23-2007, 11:14 AM

I've noticed that threads on this forum tend to get off topic. The topic of this thread is to discuss Middle Earth stories that can potentially be told in the second, unnamed prequel film. I'll start off by recommending the tale of the Fall of Arnor at the hands of the Witch King. With Max Von Sydow as Malbeth the Seer and Liam Neeson as Arvedui.

Quempel

12-23-2007, 01:35 PM

I agree zxcvbn, however, I believe the second film will be PJ et al's Phantom Menence. He and his writers will be drawing on bits and pieces and won't have the strong Tolkien backbone to prop them up. So they will have to fill in a great deal of the plots, character developments ect. And their past track record i.e. before having Tolkiens backbone to prop him up, shows they can produce some really stinkers.

Galendor

12-23-2007, 05:13 PM

"Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better."

Is this an actual quote from Peter Jackson? He said this?

William Cloud Hicklin

12-23-2007, 05:22 PM

Yes.

Sauron the White

12-23-2007, 05:42 PM

...somehow, someway, I missed the source of that quote with your post.

Galendor

12-23-2007, 09:34 PM

Wow. . . if Jackson really said that, it just disgusts me. Until now, I had assumed that he actually had reasonable appreciation for the books he was trying to adapt to film. Such a statement indicates a deplorable ego and lack of intelligent perspective - without those "long and boring" books his films could not exist. What a crappy thing to say.

WCH, not that I doubt you, but I wish I could find more proof that Jackson made this statement. I haven't been able to find further reputable evidence for it using Google...

Sauron the White

12-23-2007, 09:41 PM

Galendor .... its no wonder you cannot find that quote. I cannot locate the Fountain of Youth either.

davem

12-24-2007, 02:33 AM

WCH, not that I doubt you, but I wish I could find more proof that Jackson made this statement. I haven't been able to find further reputable evidence for it using Google...

Yahoo will bring up a few references to the comment.

davem

12-24-2007, 04:05 AM

Boyens did state in the commentary track to TT:
You meet Faramir and he's like joshing with Frodo about the ring and he says "I wouldn't take this thing if it lay by the wayside, nothing could induce me to pick this up ..." which on first glance is a great line but dramatically, you can't go there. So that was all about deepening the choices and the journeys that these characters have to go on.

Now, to reduce Faramir's conversation with Frodo to 'joshing' & say that his behaviour 'doesn't work dramatically' shows a complete misunderstanding of the incident. Obviously what she has done is scan the text rather than read it, purely in order to knock up a script. Plainly Faramir's statement comes as a result of long, hard thought & reflects a moral choice, & is as far from 'joshing' as its possible to get. If Boyens doesn''t get that she's just thick. The only reason it might have failed in the movie is that they basically cut all of Faramir's explanation of why he would reject it, his dreams & clear statements of what motivates him in favour of a load of invented tosh which added nothing to the story.

So, it certainly seems that Boyens thinks she has improved on Tolkien's work ....

Elmo

12-24-2007, 06:40 AM

Yahoo will bring up a few references to the comment.

Haha the only references to it I found were from this forum and a couple of other ones. Edit: And a reviewer who also doesn't state his source. An internet myth methinks.

Sauron the White

12-24-2007, 07:35 AM

Still awaiting the exact source of that stinging Jackson boast. All of my DVD's are at the ready to be thrown into the trash heap along with all the movie memorabillia, film books, and anything that even has to do with New Zealand.

Sauron the White

12-24-2007, 11:23 AM

Galendor here is that exact quote that William Cloud Hicklin attributed to Peter Jackson:

"Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better."

Mr. Hicklin is a very intelligent man who is also an attorney. He also is very knowledgable about the print world of JRRT and Middle-earth. As such, he has a great appreciation for the importance of each and every word in a sentence and would not use any foolishly nor post anything so damaging that he was not totally sure about. I am sure that if he posted it, he either has it memorized including the 100% reliable source he obtained it from or has it directly in front of him along with the source that can be easilly double checked.

Elmo - it is sometimes difficult to find an exact quote on the net. I have every confidence that Mr. Hicklin is soon to post with the exact source of that Jackson quote and then you can double check its authenticity.

Merry Christmas to all.

zxcvbn

12-24-2007, 11:38 AM

I am of the same opinion as Elmo: that this 'quote' of PJ is a myth. I can imagine Phillipa Boyens saying something like that, but not PJ. At least not in those exact words. Maybe something like 'Tolkien's narrative was somewhat slow-paced and plodding'(which wouldn't be wholly incorrect).

If Peter really had that little respect for the books, he wouldn't have gone to such great lenghts to adapt them and the Hobbit.

davem

12-24-2007, 12:02 PM

I've seen the exact quote on a few websites, including various fora, but I've never seen the original source/interview. Would be nice to know where it came from. Don't know if he actually said it, but it would explain the approach he took to filming the books better than the old nonsense about 'movies are different to books'. I'll keep an open mind.....

Sauron the White

12-24-2007, 12:55 PM

from davem

but it would explain the approach he took to filming the books better than the old nonsense about 'movies are different to books'.

Old nonsense? Old nonsense!!!! Books and movies are two different mediums. Books and movies are two different art forms. I know nobody who would actually claim that they are the same. Do you?

Galendor

12-26-2007, 12:04 AM

it is sometimes difficult to find an exact quote on the net. I have every confidence that Mr. Hicklin is soon to post with the exact source of that Jackson quote and then you can double check its authenticity.

Merry Christmas to all.

I've checked several permutations of the quote using Google and Yahoo search engines, using quotation marks versus not. I still haven't found a verifiable "original source" for it. But internet search engines aren't the final word on anything.

At this point, I doubt he said it, but then again I wouldn't be surprised either. If he did say this thing, even if drunk on spirits or riding high on critic-adulation, it would be such a crass statement that it would sorely influence my opinion of his character and motives. I might also throw away my movie box sets. I will wait to see if WCH knows any reputable source. I ordered the ROTK Platinum Edition movie, when it comes I might (shudder) watch all of the "bonus commentary" to see if Jackson et al. utter any such blasphemy therein.

Galendor

12-26-2007, 12:17 AM

If Peter really had that little respect for the books, he wouldn't have gone to such great lenghts to adapt them and the Hobbit.

It remains possible that he "respected the books" for their popularity and apparent money-making potential, and not their literary merit. He did go to great lengths, but with millions of dollars to finance those lengths. Making movies is his vocation, appreciating the quality of fiction writing may not be his avocation.

zxcvbn

12-26-2007, 07:29 AM

It remains possible that he "respected the books" for their popularity and apparent money-making potential, and not their literary merit.
I sincerely doubt that. Fantasy movies weren't such money makers before LOTR and Peter had a lot of trouble trying to get anyone to invest money in them.
Also, if that were true Peter would have accepted Bob Shaye's offer to direct only one LOTR film. But he declined and decided that he couldn't be involved in it as it'd be a travesty. So Bob Shaye decided to hand over the one film project to another director: unless PJ found another financier.

He did go to great lengths, but with millions of dollars to finance those lengths. Making movies is his vocation, appreciating the quality of fiction writing may not be his avocation.
It wasn't easy to get those millions, you know. And you would have to appreciate the source material in order to go to such lenghts to adapt it.

William Cloud Hicklin

12-26-2007, 09:02 AM

After much searching, I have to acknowledge that in its many appearences on the Internet, the alleged quote from PJ is never sourced. This of course is not affirmative evidence of its non-existence, since many print interviews never reach e-form; but without a traceable source I'll have to withdraw it.

However, the DVD 'extras' fairly drip with this attitude, if not stated so bluntly: time after time PBW go on and on about how X or Y 'doesn't work' or how the 'story arc' requires that a refuge (a characteristic element in Tolkien) must be converted into an obstacle, or how they just needed to stick in a fight to juice things up.

Sauron the White

12-26-2007, 09:03 AM

from Galendor

If he did say this thing, even if drunk on spirits or riding high on critic-adulation, it would be such a crass statement that it would sorely influence my opinion of his character and motives. I might also throw away my movie box sets. I will wait to see if WCH knows any reputable source.

Well it has been a couple of days now and Mr. Hicklin has posted in Movies in other threads so there was opportunity to post his original source. None has been forthcoming.

I wonder why anyone would intentionally put forth a falsehood which can be so damaging to a persons reputation?

Wait - here is the answer. Galendor says that such a statement would "sorely influence my opinion of his character and motives" and further he may even "throw away my movie box sets". It very well could be that statements such as the one posted about Mr. Jackson are part of a campaign to throw mud on the name of an otherwise innocent person who did not say those words. In fact, every statement we have from Mr. Jackson regarding JRRT and his works is glowingly positive and supportive and respectful.

davem

12-26-2007, 10:10 AM

fn fact, every statement we have from Mr. Jackson regarding JRRT and his works is glowingly positive and supportive and respectful.

- if only the movies had been....

The Saucepan Man

12-26-2007, 10:19 AM

I have seen that 'quote' used a number of times, but never seen any attribution.

I suspect that it is a misquote of something like: "There are parts of Tolkien's tale which we felt would not work well on screen, so we made changes based upon what we felt would work better in the visual medium". That, of course is not a direct quote, but represents the approach which appears to hae been adopted by Jackson, Walsh and Boyens. And I can fully understand why, given the different nature of the two media.

I do not believe that Jackson has ever said anything derogatory of the books, at least publicly, and I would be surprised if he had any negative feelings towards them. As far as I am aware, he has expressed only praise for Tolkien and his works, most notably in his Oscar acceptance speech, when he paid tribute to the man.

Thenamir

12-26-2007, 04:31 PM

...perhaps we can get back to the subject matter -- what can or could or should be in the "intertestamental" movie?

zxcvbn

12-26-2007, 10:20 PM

...perhaps we can get back to the subject matter -- what can or could or should be in the "intertestamental" movie?

My thoughts exactly. I seem to have fallen prey to the 'off-topic syndrome' myself. Why has this become the norm for this forum? If you want to discuss Peter Jackson's quotes, start a new thread, damnit!

Now, I believe I suggested a movie about the fall of the North Kingdom with Liam Neesson as Arvedui and Max Von Sydow playing Malbeth the Seer. Anybody have a better suggestion?

Galendor

12-26-2007, 11:01 PM

Sauron the White

12-27-2007, 08:04 AM

from WCH regarding the damaging Jackson "quote"

After much searching, I have to acknowledge that in its many appearences on the Internet, the alleged quote from PJ is never sourced. This of course is not affirmative evidence of its non-existence, since many print interviews never reach e-form; but without a traceable source I'll have to withdraw it.

Very good and thank you. Reminds me of a line from the old Simon & Garfunkel song "The Boxer

" a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

This whole flap is an excellent illustration for the need of checks and balances, viewpoints from a variety of perspectives. People engaged in preaching to the choir rarely are challenged to produce sources. This is a good thing.

oh - how does one prove that something does not exist?

zxcvbn

12-27-2007, 10:28 AM

As I've said before, can't somebody create a new thread to discuss the matter of the quote? I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet, considering that over half the posts are off-topic.

Sauron the White

12-27-2007, 10:30 AM

zxcvbn
your frustration is understandable, but in the end, lots of discussion here comes down to the pro vs. anti film discussion coloring nearly every other issue. You just have to roll with the punches my friend...;)

Tuor in Gondolin

01-03-2008, 09:54 AM

...perhaps we can get back to the subject matter -- what can or could or should be in the "intertestamental" movie?

As to this, while some time sequencesc ould be a bit off
(which I doubt would bother PJ and Friends) th second
could start with Gandalf narration connecting TH with
the White Council attack on Dol Guldur after a debate
by the Counci. By aging Aragorn about 10 years from his
actual 10 years old at the time you could have him lead
the Dunedain assisting the attack and set up his first
tryst with Arwen. I don't have the appendix with me at the
moment. Would Theoden have been around then? One
might imagine elements of the Rohirrim either joining
in the attack or joining in while on a scouting expedition
west of the Anduin. And you could later have Aragorn's
journeys in Rohan and Gondor included (more battles for PJ :eek: ).

William Cloud Hicklin

01-03-2008, 10:17 AM

It really doesn't matter what is 'included' in the bridge film: it can never be anything other than fanfic. This is not remotely the same as taking a full novel and condensing it to a screen runtime, where all the detail is present and much of it has to be chucked overboard, but rather the expansion of a handful of staccato entries in the Tale of Years with synthetic filler: rather like silicone-pumping a pair of A-cups to Dolly Parton size.

Estelyn Telcontar

01-03-2008, 10:22 AM

As I've said before, can't somebody create a new thread to discuss the matter of the quote? I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet, considering that over half the posts are off-topic.

"Off-topic" as defined on this forum means "not Tolkien-related". A thread may change in emphasis during the process of discussion - in fact, some of the best discussions of days long gone by took place on threads which originally started off differently. As long as a diversion is pertinent to Tolkien's works and stays away from hostile arguments and personal insults, it won't be closed by the moderators or administrators.

If members object to straying away from the original subject, they are welcome to post something that will get the discussion back on track. :) Anyone can start a new thread with a diverging topic to keep that discussion separate, and if you asks nicely ;) we are perfectly willing to merge, split or move threads and posts. If that involves posts by others, please do get their permission before asking.

Sauron the White

01-03-2008, 10:55 AM

From the wise Mr. Hicklin

This is not remotely the same as taking a full novel and condensing it to a screen runtime, where all the detail is present and much of it has to be chucked overboard, but rather the expansion of a handful of staccato entries in the Tale of Years with synthetic filler: rather like silicone-pumping a pair of A-cups to Dolly Parton size.

I do not really care how the product if put together but how it looks in the end.

skip spence

02-02-2008, 09:46 AM

Link:
http://www.wildbluffmedia.com/2007/12/20/peter-jackson-set-to-begin-work-on-the-hobbit-and-a-sequel/

So apparently there will be two movies filmed simultaneously. The first will cover the full storyline in the Hobbit. The second will bridge the 60 year gap between TH and the beginning of LoTR.

I'm a bit surprised about this choice; I'd have though there were other parts of JRRTs works that would make a better movie. Not so sure what actually happened during this time. Not much drama that I can remember. Would be cool perhaps to see an incarnate Sauron return to Barad Dur (as opposed to that silly red eye), and the White Counsil's attack on Dol Guldur.

The though of the scriptwriters being a given free reign to make up much of the storyline worries me a bit.

Still, two movies are better than one I suppose.

So what do you think this movie will contain?

And what would you like it to contain?

Nazgûl-king

02-02-2008, 02:33 PM

I think they will included the Dol Guldor storyline with The Hobbit, as for the in-between thing maybe it could show the Angmar storyline that is featured in the appendices.

skip spence

02-02-2008, 04:23 PM

davem

02-02-2008, 04:32 PM

Could someone help me list what is written about these 60 years between TH and LoTR? This is what I can remember:

The Hobbits drink their ale and plow their earth.

The elves remember the good old days.

Balin goes to Moria and have himself killed.

Gollum goes to Mordor and is caught by Sauron, who've just returned.

He's then caught by Aragorn who is quite busy during this time.

What else?

You're forgetting the famous expedition of Drogo Baggins into Far Harad to catch the gigantic gorilla which subsequently ran amok in Minas Tirith & then fell to its death from the Tower of Ecthelion. That should take up a good three hours of screentime...

davem

02-02-2008, 04:32 PM

Er.....actually I'd like to see that one......

skip spence

02-03-2008, 05:45 AM

^I'd like to see Aragorn cursing his ill fate of falling for an almost unattainable elven princess in his youth.

After all, despite his noble lineage and rugged hunkyness he's very likely to be an 80-year old virgin in LoTR. In high elven culture (which Aragorn is brought up into) marriage is consumated by the union of love, and an elf can see in someone's eye's whether he/she already has a mate.

In Rivendell:

Arwen: "Is so nice talking to you, my love. Meet me again tomorrow and we'll talk again."

Aragorn: "Right. Let's talk again tomorrow. But now I'm going for a a cold shower under a waterfall of icy meltwater from the mountains."

Essex

05-01-2008, 02:52 AM

Skip spence: re your query: "Could someone help me list what is written about these 60 years between TH and LoTR?"

This is from the tale of the years:

2942
Bilbo returns to the Shire with the Ring. Sauron returns in secret to Mordor. 2944 Bard rebuilds Dale and becomes King. Gollum leaves the Mountains and begins his search for the 'thief of the Ring.

2948
Théoden son of Thengel. King of Rohan. born.

2949
Gandalf and Balin visit Bilbo in the Shire.

2950
Finduilas, daughter of Adrahil of Dol Amroth, born.

2951
Sauron declares himself openly and gathers power in Mordor. He begins the rebuilding of Barad-dûr. Gollum turns towards Mordor. Sauron sends three of the Nazgûl to reoccupy Dol Guldur. Elrond reveals to 'Estel' his true name and ancestry, and delivers to him the shards of Narsil. Arwen, newly returned from Lórien, meets Aragorn in the woods of Imladris. Aragorn goes out into the Wild.

2953
Last meeting of the White Council. They debate the Rings. Saruman feigns that he has discovered that the One Ring has passed down Anduin to the Sea. Saruman withdraws to Isengard, which he takes as his own, and fortifies it Being jealous and afraid of Gandalf he sets spies to watch all his movements; and notes his interest in the Shire. He soon begins to keep agents in Bree and the Southfarthing.

2954
Mount Doom bursts into flame again. The last inhabitants of Ithilien flee over Anduin.

2956
Aragorn meets Gandalf and their friendship begins.

2957-80
Aragorn undertakes his great journeys and errantries. As Thorongil he serves in disguise both Thengel of Rohan and Ecthelion II of Gondor.

2968
Birth of Frodo.

2976
Denethor weds Finduilas of Dol Amroth.

2977
Bain son of Bard becomes King of Dale.

2978
Birth of Boromir son of Denethor II.

2980
Aragorn enters Lórien and there meets again Arwen Undómiel. Aragorn gives her the ring of Barahir. and they plight their troth upon the hill of Cerin Amroth. About this time Gollum reaches the confines of Mordor and becomes acquainted with Shelob. Théoden becomes King of Rohan.

2983
Faramir son of Denethor born. Birth of Samwise.

2984
Death of Ecthelion II. Denethor II becomes Steward of Gondor.

2988
Finduilas dies young.

2989
Balin leaves Erebor and enters Moria.

2991
Éomer Éomund's son born in Rohan.

2994
Balin perishes, and the dwarf-colony is destroyed.

2995
Éowyn sister of Éomer born.

_c._ 3000
The shadow of Mordor lengthens. Saruman dares to use the _palantír _of Orthanc, but becomes ensnared by Sauron, who has the Ithil Stone. He becomes a traitor to the Council. His spies report that the Shire is being closely guarded by the Rangers.?

So plenty to work on. from the above I would like to see:

Gollum searching for the Ring
the rebuilding of Barad-dur
Nazgul occupying Dol Guldur
Elrond explaining aragorn's ancestry
the White Council (and bits form the unfinished tales can be used here)
saruman off to isengard
aragorn / gandalf friendship
frodo born
aragorn / arwen and all it entails!
gollum meets shelob!!
balin - moria - (fights no doubt!) and destruction of the colony
saruman ensared by sauron in the palantir
rangers begin guard of shire

enough for a couple of hours I rekcon!

they could also be a little bit artisitic with the timings and show some form of attack on dol guldur (and retreat by sauron) wich technically takes place during the Hobbit timeline I suppose

Tuor in Gondolin

05-01-2008, 08:47 AM

Interesting. I'd forgotten how much could be
made of pre-Bilbo Gollum.

Elmo

05-03-2008, 03:46 AM

the White Council (and bits form the unfinished tales can be used here)

I thought they wouldn't be allowed bits from UT ubless Chris Tolkien gave them special permission like the Wormtongue-Nazgul bit in the radio version. And I somehow doubt that'll happen.

Morthoron

05-03-2008, 07:41 AM

I thought they wouldn't be allowed bits from UT ubless Chris Tolkien gave them special permission like the Wormtongue-Nazgul bit in the radio version. And I somehow doubt that'll happen.

They can't use UT; in fact, they cannot use part of the LotR appendices either (those parts that deal with events in the 1st and 2nd age, and which are covered in the Silmarillion). I had read once the complete deal negotiated between Saul Zaentz Co. and Tolkien; unfortunately, I can't find the reference any longer. Technically speaking, the film rights are for The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and those parts of the Appendices which don't infringe on Tolkien's other published (or at the time of the deal, unpublished) materials.

Therefore, the Tale of Years from the LotR appendix dating from the 3rd Age should be covered under the film rights.

Sauron the White

05-03-2008, 08:11 AM

from Morthoron

they cannot use part of the LotR appendices either (those parts that deal with events in the 1st and 2nd age, and which are covered in the Silmarillion

That opinion goes against every single thing I have ever heard - including long debates on this site - about what rights Zaentz purchased. My understanding is that he bought cover to cover rights with nothing exempted. That would include the Appendicies as written but no more.

I would point out that the film rights were sold BEFORE the publishing of the SIL.

If you have factual documentation to support this new, far more restrictive viewpoint, I would love to read it.

davem

05-03-2008, 09:32 AM

I have a recording of Raynor Unwin (Tolkien's publisher & very close friend) at the launch of Unfinished Tales in 1981 in which he states that the reason Tolkien struggled so much with the Appendices to LotR was that he effectively had to 'compress' the whole of the Silmarillion into them. Hence, one could argue that parts of Appendix A & B represent yet another version of the 'Silmarillion' - in fact, one could push it & take the words of Sam & Frodo on the stairs, that they are both part of the story of Beren & Luthien & the Silmaril to claim that what Tolkien actually sold the rights to was a small section of the Legendarium as a whole & that he (or his estate) is obligated to let them have the whole thing, because the Silmarillion is effectively part of LotR (or vice versa) - in fact Tolkien struggled for a long time to get the two works published together, as he felt that LotR could not be understood without a knowledge of the Silmarillion...

And certainly I think its pretty much beyond argument that he would have sold the film rights to the Sil writings when he sold the Hobbit & LotR rights - if anyone had wanted them.

Another interesting comment from Tolkien himself - Humphrey Carpenter related that when he went to see Tolkien to ask him if it was all right to put on a production of the Hobbit at a local school Tolkien told him he thought it was a very sill idea, but who was he (Tolkien) to stop him? He even suggested tunes for the songs (which mostly took the form of Gregorian Chant & which Carpenter decided was hardly right for a prep school production), & went along to see the performance, critiquing it severely at the end (while drinking all the wine from Carpenter's glass...).

In the end, I think its clear that Tolkien's attitude to dramatisation of his work came down to a conviction that the whole idea was 'silly' & bound to fail miserably, but (as long as he was asked for permission & received proper remuneration) it was fine with him.

Morthoron

05-03-2008, 01:17 PM

That opinion goes against every single thing I have ever heard - including long debates on this site - about what rights Zaentz purchased. My understanding is that he bought cover to cover rights with nothing exempted. That would include the Appendicies as written but no more.

I would point out that the film rights were sold BEFORE the publishing of the SIL.

If you have factual documentation to support this new, far more restrictive viewpoint, I would love to read it.

From personal experience, I can say that there is certainly a delineation point within the appendices -- only I am not quite sure where that exactly is contextually. I am waiting for a call back from one of the senior developers of Lord of the Rings Online (the online Middle-earth MMORPG, current subscriber base approx 300-400k). Lord of the Rings Online has the exclusive contract for the online gaming segment of The Hobbit and LotR proprietary rights owned by Tolkien Enterprises (aka Saul Zaentz Co.).

Having been involved in the game through the alpha and beta processes (and previously while the game was still in design), I can tell you that there are certain things the game cannot show or discuss, including anything dealing with 1st Age Middle-earth in the appendices; however, if there is a mention of a 1st Age name or place within the actual text of either The Hobbit or LotR, then said reference is allowed. For instance, Aragorn referring to Beren and Luthien is allowed because it is in the actual text, but the term 'Valar' or 'Maiar' is not because there is no mention directly in the text. Anything that predates a 3rd Age reference within the game must be passed by Tolkien Enterprises to assure they remain within their rights.

I will offer an update as soon as I hear more.

Sauron the White

05-03-2008, 03:25 PM

That is a great spot to be in. Sounds like a great job.

One thing that I am not clear about. The game is licensed by Saul Zaentz through rights he has purchased from UA decades ago. Even if the license the game people have prohibit the mention of certain First and Second Age things, why would that necesarrily mean that the rights Zaentz posesses would limit him in the same way? It could simply mean that Zaentz wants to limit the scope of rights to others and he himself is not under the same limitations.

Or the limitations placed on the games license could simply be to limit the scope of content to events already in the films and Zaentz or New Line does not want new ground covered if they themselves have not yet done it.

All this is theory of course.

Morthoron

05-04-2008, 03:12 PM

That is a great spot to be in. Sounds like a great job.

It was not a job, it was a misadventure. Actually, I was offered a position as a Tolkien quest-writer in-game by Turbine (the company that produces Lord of the Rings Online); however, I declined as it would have moved me to another state and would have only been a temporary position in any case. I suppose I might have jumped on it if I were younger and without a family, but that was not in the equation.

In addition, I got physically ill at the lore atrocities evident in every fiber of the game, and have not played since prior to the game's official release due to mental health considerations (thus retaining what little sanity I still have).

One thing that I am not clear about. The game is licensed by Saul Zaentz through rights he has purchased from UA decades ago. Even if the license the game people have prohibit the mention of certain First and Second Age things, why would that necesarrily mean that the rights Zaentz posesses would limit him in the same way? It could simply mean that Zaentz wants to limit the scope of rights to others and he himself is not under the same limitations.

Or the limitations placed on the games license could simply be to limit the scope of content to events already in the films and Zaentz or New Line does not want new ground covered if they themselves have not yet done it.

All this is theory of course.

Okay here are the licensing commandments as I now understand them:

1) If references appear only in the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, thou shalt use them.

2) If references appear in both the actual text of LotR and TH, and in The Silmarillion (or other Tolkien publication controlled by the Tolkien Family Trust, such as UT or HoMe), thou shalt use them.

3) If references appear in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, but not in LotR or TH, thou shalt not use them.

4) If references appear in the LotR Appendices, but not in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, thou shalt use them.

5) If references appear in the LotR Appendices, and in The Silmarillion or other Tolkien publication, but do not appear in the actual text of LotR or TH, thou shalt not use them.

Again, as you pointed out Mr. White, this may merely be a measure of control Tolkien Enterprises has exerted on the users of the gaming license (in this case Turbine, but also Electronic Arts, which controls the X-Box and PSP gaming license); however, as litigious as the Tolkien Family Trust is known to be (as you know, they are currently suing Newline... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/business/media/12movie.html?fta=y), it is perhaps wise on Tolkien Ent's part to ensure that there is not the slightest hint of impropriety in their handling of their licenses in regards to the exclusive rights Tolkien Family Trust exerts over what remains of Tolkien's legacy. Or, perhaps more to the point, they are limited by copyright law against using references to The Silmarillion (unless specified) within their license.

After all, even though Tolkien Enterprise's licensing rights are granted in perpetuity, they can be revoked by the courts (which I am sure would please Christopher Tolkien, and be the crowning achievement of his curmudgeonly struggle for control of his father's legacy).

P.S. It is interesting to note that Games Workshops PLC is the only company currently that holds permissions from both Tolkien Enterprises and the Tolkien Family Trust to merchandise products. The permissions granted by the Tolkien Family Trust is limited to one single product: the game figurines of Khamûl the Easterling (as you know, the name Khamûl does not appear in the text of LotR of The Hobbit).

William Cloud Hicklin

05-30-2008, 05:48 AM

After all, even though Tolkien Enterprise's licensing rights are granted in perpetuity, they can be revoked by the courts (which I am sure would please Christopher Tolkien, and be the crowning achievement of his curmudgeonly struggle for control of his father's legacy).

Rubbish.

Morthoron

05-30-2008, 01:10 PM

Rubbish.

Rubbish? In what sense do you mean, WCH?

Sauron the White

05-30-2008, 01:18 PM

Yes, I too would like a bit more in the way of detail.
WCH - are you saying that - based on what you know - CT would be unhappy or upset if the film rights reverted to him and/or the Estate?

Mithalwen

05-30-2008, 01:41 PM

Surely it is obvious he means rubbish to the "Christopher Tolkien is a miserable old git who only wants to spoil everyone's fun" cliche? :rolleyes:

William Cloud Hicklin

05-30-2008, 01:49 PM

Precisely, Mith.

Note also that the film rights aren't going to revert to the Estate: even if the court grants the plaintiffs' petition, all it means is that the Estate has the option to remove them from New Line/TW: and thus revert them back to Zaentz and MGM/UA.

Eönwë

05-30-2008, 01:56 PM

A slightly different question- Do you think the Tolkien Estate would ever be willing to sell rights to the UT?

That would mean that they could use things that are not in The Hobbit or Lotr but are realted to it.

My guess is no, though.

But think of it: The dwarves' battle in the North (During the WotR)

William Cloud Hicklin

05-30-2008, 02:02 PM

A slightly different question- Do you think the Tolkien Estate would ever be willing to sell rights to the UT?

"Ever" is a long time. But certainly not Christopher, and the impression I get (which admittedly is merely that) is that Adam Tolkien feels the same way; at any rate, that is only one vote (alongside Baillie and Michael George Tolkien).

davem

05-30-2008, 02:10 PM

Yes, I too would like a bit more in the way of detail.
WCH - are you saying that - based on what you know - CT would be unhappy or upset if the film rights reverted to him and/or the Estate?

Where's this idea that the Estate wants, or even expects, to get the film rights back come from? All I've seen is the following statement from the Tolkien Trust:

The complaint seeks, among other things, in excess of $150 million in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages, and a declaration from the Court that the plaintiffs have a right to terminate any further rights New Line may have to the Tolkien works under the agreements, including The Hobbit, due to the serious and material nature of the breach of the agreements.

which I interpret to mean that if New Line don't hand over what they owe then the Trust don't want New Line to be able to make any more movies based on Tolkien's work - which at worst would mean that Zaentz would be free to sell them to any other studio (who would then be free to hire Jackson & Del Toro, or whoever they wanted, to produce/direct.

If anyone has seen any statement from Christopher or anyone else associated with the Trust/Estate that they have any intention, or even desire, to get back the movie rights I'd be interested to hear it.

William Cloud Hicklin

05-30-2008, 02:23 PM

Moreover, neither Saul Zaentz nor MGM/UA are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which means that they cannot have rights taken away.

Mithalwen

05-30-2008, 02:25 PM

Maybe if with new rights they could get the clout that say JK Rowling has over the Harry Potter movies they might release parts. I think Aldarion and Erendis could make a great film as one of the stories with real passion. I doubt they would ever just sell the lot - so much of it is undefinitive.

Of course since they are hamstringing the Hobbit to fit in with LOTR it may be closer to the Quest of Erebor .... and the quest for the ring will surely feature in the hotchpotch movie ... but thinking about that is far too depressing :(

I adore UT for all the extra information but I am not sure that there is much else that would really have enough for a stand alone movie. The Narn and Tuor are not complete in UT, Does the pact of Cirion and Eorl have the impact alone? If you separate it from its fulfilment at the Pellennor? If you remove the Disaster of the Gladden Fields and Orophir /Thranduil at the Battle of the last Alliance from the wider history of the Rings of Power is there a movie in them? Not sure.... wonderful episodes if you were doing a great epic tv serial but maybe not a film.

Sauron the White

05-30-2008, 02:33 PM

So, Christopher Tolkien has no interest, legal or otherwise, in getting the film rights back?

davem

05-30-2008, 02:39 PM

So, Christopher Tolkien has no interest, legal or otherwise, in getting the film rights back?

Has he ever expressed any? That's what I asked. I've never seen any statement from him even mentioning a desire to have the movie rights back, but I'd be interested to know if he had.

Mithalwen

05-30-2008, 02:52 PM

Surely film rights must expire at some point? Since copyright expires eventually it seems illogical that film rights could last forever. At some point it must be open to everyone (like when there were two films of "Emma" in one year and "Valmont" and "Dangerous Liaisons" appeared more or less at the same time (both based on Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Laclos). In someways that might be a good thing - I hold that Tolkien's world is great enough to take different interpretations and visions.

Sauron the White

05-30-2008, 03:04 PM

One way to offer predictions about the future is by studying the past. Let us speculate that someday, someway, somehow, CT and the Estate do get control of the film rights back to both LOTR and HOBBIT.

Would there be any reason to believe that they would treat them any differently than they treat potential film rights to every other piece of writing they currently control by JRRT?

William Cloud Hicklin

05-30-2008, 03:07 PM

That's a very idle speculation, StW. Certainly the current lawsuit purports to do no such thing.

Mithalwen

05-30-2008, 03:19 PM

Who knows what the new generation might do? Christopher has now passed both his parents in age and much as I hope the combination of Suffield genes and the advanced French healthcare system keep him on this side of the Sundering Sea for as long as possible, I doubt that film projects would feature heavily in what he would choose to do with the time left to him.

However I believe Adam's "day job" is lighting designer, Rachel has an art gallery, there are other "creative types" among the younger generation...not absolutely inconceivable that between them they might have the inclination, knowledge and nous to control any film-making themselves. There is a world of difference between commisioning an architect to build on your own land and flogging it off to a developer for a quick buck. Not saying that it would happen but I think I read a French interview with Adam that hinted at something... will try and find....

Eönwë

05-30-2008, 04:59 PM

I adore UT for all the extra information but I am not sure that there is much else that would really have enough for a stand alone movie. The Narn and Tuor are not complete in UT, Does the pact of Cirion and Eorl have the impact alone? If you separate it from its fulfilment at the Pellennor? If you remove the Disaster of the Gladden Fields and Orophir /Thranduil at the Battle of the last Alliance from the wider history of the Rings of Power is there a movie in them? Not sure.... wonderful episodes if you were doing a great epic tv serial but maybe not a film.

What I mean is that of course you can use the Quest of Erebor, and I think that maybe for movie 2 they could talk about the dwarf wars going on at the same time, but yes, you are right (but maybe that would be a reason that the Estate would be less reluctant to sell the rights).

Morthoron

05-30-2008, 10:43 PM

which I interpret to mean that if New Line don't hand over what they owe then the Trust don't want New Line to be able to make any more movies based on Tolkien's work - which at worst would mean that Zaentz would be free to sell them to any other studio (who would then be free to hire Jackson & Del Toro, or whoever they wanted, to produce/direct.

Moreover, neither Saul Zaentz nor MGM/UA are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which means that they cannot have rights taken away.

I wasn't referring to the current lawsuit (Tolkien Family Trust vs NewLine) in my post (the one WCH referred to as rubbish); as a matter of fact, I haven't discussed the current lawsuit anywhere in this thread, thank you. If you harken back to what Sauron and I were actually discussing, it regarded the Tolkien Enterprise license, and what it specifically entails (or does not entail -- from a theoretic standpoint, obviously).

If anyone has seen any statement from Christopher or anyone else associated with the Trust/Estate that they have any intention, or even desire, to get back the movie rights I'd be interested to hear it.

Actually, I'd be more intrigued to see a quote from C. Tolkien stating that has no interest or desire in retrieving the film rights; however, if he did so desire, from a legal standpoint he'd be daft to utter it in public.

William Cloud Hicklin

05-31-2008, 06:41 AM

Actually, I'd be more intrigued to see a quote from C. Tolkien stating that has no interest or desire in retrieving the film rights;

Why on earth expect CRT (or anyone) to affirmatively state a negative? Do we routinely ask people to tell us everything they don't plan to do? Be reasonable.

Btw, I didn't call your whole post rubbish, merely the perpetuation of the bogeyman caricature-Christopher.

Morthoron

05-31-2008, 07:29 AM

Why on earth expect CRT (or anyone) to affirmatively state a negative? Do we routinely ask people to tell us everything they don't plan to do? Be reasonable.

Again, from a legal standpoint, I don't believe C. Tolkien would answer the question directly in either case. Would it be unreasonable for him to desire the film rights? On the contrary, he would be a lunatic if he didn't harbor interest in the return of the license. I would be quite amazed if he had never discussed what options the Family Trust had in that regard with his attorneys. But that is something that would never be discussed publicly, would it?

the perpetuation of the bogeyman caricature-Christopher.

I referred to him as curmudgeonly, which by any stretch of the imagination he is (I have on occassion referred to myself as a curmudgeon, so I don't view the term as a pejorative). I admire Mr. Tolkien's adherence to principle regarding his father's legacy.

Sauron the White

05-31-2008, 08:16 AM

In playing poker, and in dealings of serious nature, playing your cards close to the vest and not alerting the others to your true intentions are part and parcel of playing the game to your ultimate advantage.

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants control of the film rights back? If he sees the future legal proceedings going his way, can he not make adjustments to his legal strategy which go beyond what he has said so far through his attorneys?

William Cloud Hicklin

06-01-2008, 07:20 AM

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants control of the film rights back?

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants an underground fortress full of flying monkeys?

This " wants control of the film rights back" comes from your imagination.

Morthoron

06-01-2008, 11:43 AM

Is there any reason why, at this point in time, CT needs to publicly announce that he wants an underground fortress full of flying monkeys?

An underground fortress full of flying monkeys? Now, WCH, that's just plain silly! Everyone knows flying monkeys need above-ground air space for take-offs and landings. How about a skull-shaped mountain fortress on an uncharted island?

This " wants control of the film rights back" comes from your imagination.

Given Tolkien's scrupulous protection of his family's rights (right down to threatening a lawsuit against Dungeons and Dragons in the 70's for their use of the term 'hobbit' -- which was thereafter changed to 'halfling'), one has to consider what is reasonable in regards to this question. Is it reasonable to believe that the thought of continued digressions and outright inanities -- the appalling diminution of his father's literary legacy -- sticks in Christopher's craw like an undigested piece of pork? I would think any reasonable person would answer in the affirmative.

Is it reasonable to think that if the legal opportunity existed for the Tolkien Family Trust to regain the film rights, would they would not grab that chance as if it were the One Ring itself? Again, it is reasonable to believe so.

Has Christopher Tolkien said publicly he wishes to get the film rights back? No, but then again he doesn't grant interviews; however, it is reasonable to believe that the thought has crossed his mind on more than one occassion.

davem

06-01-2008, 12:56 PM

Given Tolkien's scrupulous protection of his family's rights (right down to threatening a lawsuit against Dungeons and Dragons in the 70's for their use of the term 'hobbit' -- which was thereafter changed to 'halfling'), one has to consider what is reasonable in regards to this question.

Well, if Gygax had been more widely read he might have a) been able to defend his use of the word Hobbit by citing the Denham Tracts, & b) have produced a game that was a little more than a bad rip off of Tolkien...

Is it reasonable to think that if the legal opportunity existed for the Tolkien Family Trust to regain the film rights, would they would not grab that chance as if it were the One Ring itself? Again, it is reasonable to believe so.

Surely there's all the difference in the world between protecting what you own & lusting for something you don't?

Morthoron

06-01-2008, 01:46 PM

Well, if Gygax had been more widely read he might have a) been able to defend his use of the word Hobbit by citing the Denham Tracts, & b) have produced a game that was a little more than a bad rip off of Tolkien...?

What is humorous about Gygax is that to his dying day (he died this year) he claimed that Tolkien elements in his game were only added because of fans' insistence, and that he found Lord of the Rings "too slow-paced for me."

The most apt quote regarding Gygax was the memorable: "Gary Gygax is a collector of vintage Tolkien pornography."

Surely there's all the difference in the world between protecting what you own & lusting for something you don't?

Would something that close to your heart, and something that is so inextricably wound through through the very fabric of your life be simply disregarded or lopped off like an unnecessary appendage? A sort of literary appendix? It would certainly be irksome to me to see my father's (and from an emotional and editorial extent, my own) work be out of my control.

As a retired musician (I no longer play the pub circuit or record) I can tell you that I personally know many folks who have spent years trying to retrieve their works -- the rights for which they legally signed away in a time of youthful naivety or due to financial straits. I see no difference in this instance.

Sauron the White

06-01-2008, 02:45 PM

yes folks, but be careful, be very careful , unless you have an interview with Christopher Tolkien that has been authenticated and legally certfied by a panel of attorneys stating very clearly and without any shading stating that

"I HATE THOSE DAMN MOVIES AND WANT THOSE RIGHTS BACK AS MINE"

you risk being labeled here as a wild speculator who has no evidence for your ridiculous claims.

Forget that much of what we do here is speculation ... throw all that to the wind. Either present your legally certified documents which will stand up in court or just get out of the way. That has been made clear to me.

davem

06-01-2008, 03:49 PM

Ok.... I'd be willing to bet that if Saul Zaentz was to walk up to CT & offer him the movie rights back, gratis, with no strings attached, Ct would take them, thank him politely, & probably offer him a glass of Old Winyards or equivalent, but...

That's not the point at issue here. None of us know what CT wants in regards to the movie rights. Maybe he does want them back, maybe not.

What do we actually know about CT's attitude to the PJ movies in particular, & to visual adaptations of his father's work in general. Well, we know (via Mr Hicklin) that he doesn't care for PJ's adaptation of LotR. We also know that he feels his father's work is particularly unsuitable to visual representation. Finally, we know that he has refused to sell the film rights to any of his father's other writings. What can we surmise from those facts about his desire, or otherwise, to get back the film rights to LotR & TH?

Absolutely nothing. The fact that he didn't like what Jackson did with his father's work is hardly 'evidence'. Tolkien himself thought Humphrey Carpenter's plan to put on a high school play of TH was 'silly' (& told HC that to his face, but went on to state that if Carpenter wanted to do so who was he (ie Tolkien) to stop him - & even went on to suggest tunes for the songs & actually attend the performance. And as far as refusing to sell the rights to any further writings that may have as much to do with his experience with New Line's refusal to hand over what they owe, & with the fuss of negotiating the contract, as with any kind of 'moral' objection.

Now, I have absolutely no idea what CT's feelings are re the movie rights - mayhap he spends every waking moment scheming to get them back. Or maybe he has no desire at all for them. And that, gentlemen, is the point. None of us know what CT wants. You can speculate as much as you want but ultimately you won't get any closer to the truth. CT is the only one who knows what he feels about the film rights, & so far (again, as far as I know) he's said absolutely nothing about it.

Morthoron

06-01-2008, 07:26 PM

What do we actually know about CT's attitude to the PJ movies in particular, & to visual adaptations of his father's work in general. Well, we know (via Mr Hicklin) that he doesn't care for PJ's adaptation of LotR. We also know that he feels his father's work is particularly unsuitable to visual representation. Finally, we know that he has refused to sell the film rights to any of his father's other writings. What can we surmise from those facts about his desire, or otherwise, to get back the film rights to LotR & TH?...Absolutely nothing.

Let's see, he didn't care for the adaptation of LotR (and from what I've read, that is an understatement), he doesn't feel his father's work is suitable for visual representation, and he has steadfastly refused to sell any of the film rights he currently holds.

Let's see, that's three negatives regarding film rights, and you say there is nothing to be surmised by that? *rolls eyes*

You can speculate as much as you want but ultimately you won't get any closer to the truth. CT is the only one who knows what he feels about the film rights, & so far (again, as far as I know) he's said absolutely nothing about it.

Forget that much of what we do here is speculation ... throw all that to the wind. Either present your legally certified documents which will stand up in court or just get out of the way. That has been made clear to me.

Well then, satis verborum.

William Cloud Hicklin

06-02-2008, 06:17 AM

Estelyn Telcontar

06-02-2008, 06:26 AM

My goodness, people, the man has a right to his own private thoughts and life! Please stop playing paparazzi and get back to the topic of this thread. No more second-guessing irrelevant matters that concern only CRT himself and are not the public's business until they become such. Let's give JRRT's family at least a bit of the respect we have for him.

Morthoron

06-03-2008, 06:57 AM

Okay, you want to see evidence of such an intention, or the reverse?

In 2011-12 (Lord of the Rings) and 2013 (Hobbit) the Estate will have the right under US copyright law to cancel and revoke *every* single assignment of copyright JRRT ever made in his lifetime. (No kidding- it's called 'copyright reclamation' and you can look it up). Although it wouldn't apply to the rest of the world, without US film rights no studio would ever undertake such an expensive project.

Yes, I had forgotten that codicil of US copyright law. Paul McCartney has already stated he will exercise his rights under that law to reclaim the US copyrights for the Beatles catalog held by Sony (from Michael Jackson) when they revert in a few years. Can Yoko be far behind?

As far as the 2nd movie, one would think that there will be at least a portion of it devoted to the dwarves who played such a large part in the Hobbit (or perhaps they will just disappear like the elves did after the battle of Helm's Deep in TT). I would suggest that Balin's colony at Moria will get some sort of treatment; after all, they can ressurrect the Balrog from the Weta vaults for some more pyrotechnics (I use the balrog scene in FotR to test the DTS on my surround sound). At least with the Balin character there can be direct continuity from the Hobbit, through the 2nd film and into FotR.

Perhaps the meeting of Gandalf and Balin with Bilbo in the Shire can be a tie-in for the Moria segment.

Olórin the White

06-06-2008, 03:48 PM

alright. so I've trolled Tolkien forums for a long time now, and have been biding my time to post...but it seems about time to give in.

After reading through this thread I have a couple things to say. First of all, someone commented way back on the first page that many of today's movie goers are too busy to read long 'boring' books when they can just watch the movie and be entertained by good looks and fast moving action. And alas, that is far too common...however I would like to present that there are many exceptions to that, myself included. So often I find in Tolkien communities a steadfast opinion that anyone under the age of 20(ish), who was introduced to Tolkien through the Lord of the Rings films cannot have a true appreciation for what the books really stand for. Now, I'm sure it is not deliberately intended that way, but it is nonetheless the impression that is created.
However, I was introduced to the wonders of Tolkien through the films, and they fascinated me enough to dig a little deeper into the original material. To be fair, I have always been one for good literature over new-fangled entertainment like reality television, cheap movies, and the boorish celebrity news that populates much of our entertainment industry...but that being said, I think some credit must be given to the films for introducing a new generation of readers to the books, even if the percentage of those who really become passionate about Tolkien's writing is small compared to the masses of people who saw the films. That alone must be worth something...
I now love all of Tolkien's work, and while I enjoy the films as well, I do not see them to be of equal stature to the books, which are pure gems. But perhaps I'm just a rarity in that sense...
All I'm trying to say is that the films do deserve some recognition as a gateway to the greater world of Middle Earth in its literary form.

Secondly, about the whole film rights/should parts of the Sil or CoH be made into films/money vs. art issue.
I hope to goodness I never live to see the day that the Silmarillion be made into a film or television series or anything close to that. I think it to be impossible to ever visually capture the intricacies of stories that are not completely fleshed out without completing re-inventing the proverbial wheel. They would no longer be the magical tales we have grown to love and cherish; instead, a film based on the entirety of the Silmarillion would be a rough caricature of what the books is, and a long drawn out 'historical' documentary series would be unbearable to me because there is no way the budget could be big enough to sustain such an immense production at a level of sufficient cinematic quality.
That being said, I am a film student with a specific interest in screenwriting and directing, and I see the possibility of taking a select few of the stories from the Silmarillion and creating great films. I would LOVE to one day be priveleged enough to render the story of Beren and Luthien onto celluloid. I think out of all the tales of the first and second ages it is the most likely to be adaptable to film, WITHOUT compromising the integrity of Tolkien's vision of it. Frankly I think it would make a beautiful piece of cinema. However, I doubt it would ever manage to escape the perversion of the current studio system without being scarred, and as such I wouldn't want myself or any other filmmaker to be limited in their telling of Beren and Luthien in that way. So unless I become fabulously rich at some point in the near future, and am able to independently approach CT (or whoever is in charge of the Tolkien Estate by then) with proof that I would be faithful to the art of that story...or the world ends and the Hollywood studio system is brought down and drastically changed, I very much doubt that I will ever have the opportunity.
And as for the film rights question, I'm just going to leave that alone because it is well beyond my control...however, I will say that I think CT would not be opposed to film adaptations of his father's work if film could be shown to do justice to the books, and that the original material would be created with utmost respect.

And thirdly, to address with this thread is actually about...I suppose what I would wish to see in this 'sequel' movie is the story of Gollum entering Mordor, being tracked by Aragorn and Gandalf...Aragorn's friendship with Gandalf and love for Arwen...Balin would make a great tie-in to LotR...
and I will say that I still have some faith in PJ, especially with del Toro on board. I think he will bring new eyes and perhaps a renewed interest in capturing the essence of the books, thus creating a counter-opinion to PJ's in the writing process. but then again, I'm an optimist for the most part... ;)

Eönwë

06-08-2008, 07:05 AM

So often I find in Tolkien communities a steadfast opinion that anyone under the age of 20(ish), who was introduced to Tolkien through the Lord of the Rings films cannot have a true appreciation for what the books really stand for. Now, I'm sure it is not deliberately intended that way, but it is nonetheless the impression that is created.
However, I was introduced to the wonders of Tolkien through the films, and they fascinated me enough to dig a little deeper into the original material. To be fair, I have always been one for good literature over new-fangled entertainment like reality television, cheap movies, and the boorish celebrity news that populates much of our entertainment industry...but that being said, I think some credit must be given to the films for introducing a new generation of readers to the books, even if the percentage of those who really become passionate about Tolkien's writing is small compared to the masses of people who saw the films. That alone must be worth something...
I now love all of Tolkien's work, and while I enjoy the films as well, I do not see them to be of equal stature to the books, which are pure gems. But perhaps I'm just a rarity in that sense...
All I'm trying to say is that the films do deserve some recognition as a gateway to the greater world of Middle Earth in its literary form.

Yeah, well I agree and disagree.

For the disagreement, I'm under 20 (Actually 14) and I read the books soon after the last film came out. Then I read The Silm, The UT, and BoLT. I'd already ready TH. And I like the books much more (though the EE improves it a lot, except for the Gandalf vs. WK scene- Gandalf's a Maia for Eru's sake). The movies don't even come close to me. And I know other people who feel the same way.

But I agree that they help people read the books, and even though I probably would have read it anyway, the films definitely gave me more enthusiasm to read the books.